Jump to content

User talk:Turkeybutt JC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, Turkeybutt JC, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Turkeybutt JC, good luck, and have fun. – CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkeybutt JC, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Turkeybutt JC! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jean-Baptiste Bernard de la Harpe

[edit]

Hello, Turkeybutt JC. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Jean-Baptiste Bernard de la Harpe, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Jean-Baptiste Bernard de la Harpe to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Celestinesucess (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I hate uncited entries. (e.g. the first entry on the Timeline of Little Rock article) I hate having to respond by saying something on your talk page rather than respond to your message on my talk page. I think it's better for me to respond to your message on my talk page lest I get into an edit conflict. I'm so naïve. --Turkeybutt (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. It turns out there already is an article of him. And I was mistaken- nevermind... --Turkeybutt (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

I've reverted all that. You cannot make +/- 50 edits, about 3/4 of them not improvements, and expect others to go back thru and pick out the ones that helped. Make a few edits at at time, and your request is reasonable (i.e. if you make 5 edits and one was useful, it's reasonable to expect a reverting editor to add back the good edit). But you are not going to be able to approach editing in a collaborative environment this way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I help or hurt the encyclopedia, but here is why I edited what:
  • Paleo-Indians migrated from Asia to the North American mainland at least 15,000 years ago to Paleo-Indians migrated from Asia to the North American mainland in about 15,000 BCE
in about would be grammatically incorrect, but the point is at WP:REALTIME;
Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in 1999", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in 1951".
12,985 BC is 15,000 years before 2016. Paleo-Indians migrated from Asia to the North American mainland around 12,985 BC. That would be crazy. The statement on the article would be outdated about 5,000 years from now.
  • The first known publication of the phrase "United States of America" was in an anonymous essay in The Virginia Gazette newspaper in Williamsburg, Virginia, on April 6, 1776.
First being replaced with earliest would be pointless since first and earliest mean the same thing. So it would be okay to revert.
What does known as mean? It wouldn't seem to matter if known as was replaced with called. Although this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. At least I don't have to use a limited vocabulary on this English Wikipedia.
It's because turn the tide is an idiom. If it was taken literally then it would seem as if America was working with the Allies to mess with how water flows so the Central powers could lose. WP:IDIOM states;
If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, it should be reworded.
  • Removal of the word leading from The United States played a leading role in the Bretton Woods and Yalta conferences...
The word leading is a peacock word. It is listed in the yellow box in WP:PUFFERY.
... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique ...
  • Removal of what is known as After World War II the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed for power during what is known as the Cold War,
I don't think the words what is known as is necessary. Do you think it is necessary? If so, why? Any policies or guidelines supporting this? The context doesn't seem to need those four words at all to me though...
Prominent also sounds like a pufferous statement. Also from WP:PUFFERY;
Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
  • The concept of Pax Americana, which had appeared in the post-World War II period, gained wide popularity as a term for the post-Cold War new world order. to The concept of Pax Americana, which had appeared in the post-World War II period, was used as a nickname for the post-Cold War new world order.
What's wrong with replacing gained wide popularity as a term with was used as a nickname? I have never heard Pax Americana used to describe a new world order. So it can't be popular to me.
Popular is subjective. What is popular to someone isn't popular to someone else. When someone tells you about something you have never heard of, it won't seem popular to you, but when you continue to look it up, it'll start to seem popular to you.
  • Though little known at the time, Charles Ives's work of the 1910s established him as the first major U.S. composer to Charles Ives's work of the 1910s established him as one of the first U.S. composers
How do we know he was little-known during his time? This is not right. How do we know if he was major or not? Then who was the first first U.S. composer?
  • Ommission of Americans have long been important in the modern artistic medium of photography
How long have us Americans been important in the modern artistic medium of photography? What does the editor even mean by important as in "Americans have been important to photography"?
Okay, here's this; Muslims have long been important to the existence of the United States of America. That sounds crazy. But then it would make sense if we realize that during the Crusades, the Arab nations were in between Europe and Asia on the Silk Road. The Europeans did not want to go through the Arab territories to trade with China. In 1492, Christopher Columbus sought to come up with a shorter trade route to China, but by sailing west, he had landed on the New World, he colonized Cuba, Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. The imperial nations of Europe sought to colonize the New World. In 1776, thirteen British colonies declared their independence from the British Empire and unified into a Continental Congress renamed as the United States of America. It would be crazy.
What if people stop calling it old-time, then now would make it outdated. If people still call it old-time, the word now still shouldn't be used or replaced with the word still. Listed on box at WP:REALTIME;
... recently, lately, currently, today, presently, to date, 15 years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, this/last/next (year/month/winter/spring/summer/fall/autumn), yesterday, tomorrow, in the future, now, soon, since ...
  • ...were a vital component in what became known as "New Hollywood" or the "Hollywood Renaissance", to ...contributed to what is nicknamed "New Hollywood" or the "Hollywood Renaissance",
As I already mentioned, Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
What does what became known as mean?
From WP:PUFFERY; ... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique ...
Many potential refs and sources do say that it is one of the greatest films, but that doesn't mean it can just be directly stated by the article itself. Frequently isn't recommended. WP:WHATPLACE lists a synonym;
... this country, here, there, somewhere, sometimes, often, occasionally, somehow ...
  • Omission of four major broadcasters in the U.S. are the because what is major to one person is minor to another. But it does make sense to give undue weight to things without highlighting anything.
  • Omission of Well-known newspapers are because well-known sounds like puffery. What is well-known to one is also not so well-known to another.
  • Removal of best-known from for example, New York City's The Village Voice or Los Angeles' LA Weekly, to name two of the best-known. I'm against the use of subjective terms like best-known.
Wikipedia shouldn't read like an editorial summary or the script of a TED-Ed video. Wikipedia wants to put undue weight on stuff, not highlight them. Wikipedia articles should be written from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral perspective.}}
I didn't mention every bit of my contribution though. But that is why I assume that much of that revision I made was good.
There are also barnstars and other awards for diligence such as the Tireless Contributor barnstar. --Turkeybutt (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So make a few of those edits at a time (similar edits at the same time (like all the "nicknamed" together, and all the "years ago" together, and see what sticks. But you can't expect people to go thru such a large edit piece by piece, and do the hard work of sorting good from bad, when you have made it particularly hard on them to do so. For example, I would object to "nicknamed", as I do not think it sounds more neutral, and I do not think "known as" is a weasel word. Nor do I agree with switching to "BCE", as that is not used anywhere else in the article and we try to stay consistent. If you did that edit in, I don't know, 5-10 separate passes, then people could object to what they object to, and leave what they don't. But you can't come to an article and demand people try to piece together 5, or 30, changes that they object to out of a 50 change edit. Nor can you demand 9000% certainty. The people who edited this article before you chose to do things a certain way. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong, sometimes a judgement call. I think you will find many other copy editors do it piecemeal for that very reason; because you are trying to help those who came before, not impose conditions on them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. But is using what is known as in The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were involved in the Cold War. so it is The U.S. and U.S.S.R. were involved in what is known as the Cold War. really necessary? I don't think so. But that doesn't matter in terms of guideline-following.
Here's a trick. If you do CTRL + F you can open up a text input bar that will highlight all the instances of what you put in the that bar.
I wasn't sure if I should've used BC or BCE. But then by the year 7000 we would have to change 15,000 years ago to 20,000 years ago.
--Turkeybutt (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:W2W and relatives

[edit]

The first phrase of WP:W2W is "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia"; the second paragraph begins "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Your edits are not generally bad, but they are overly rigid, mechanical applications of advice. The result is that occasionally your edits are very bad; for example, in this one you changed technical language, rendering it wrong and nonsensical. Don't do that! Thanks. --JBL (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as I was writing this, you reverted. Let me elaborate on this particular example, since it's completely clear-cut: the phrase "essentially decidable" is technical language, like "black hole." The word "essentially" cannot be stripped in the former phrase any more than the adjective "black" can be stripped from the latter without destroying the meaning entirely. (One hint about this fact is the use of bold around the phrase.) The guideline you are implementing is reasonable and defensible, but there is a good reason that it begins with a bunch of text about being careful in implementing it. --JBL (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was a misuse of the Replace All button with the CTRL-F thing on my behalf. My bad. --Turkeybutt (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It is interesting to me that your editing is getting more agressively disruptive and problematic, rather than less. When I first noticed you (or an IP editor with extremely similar behavior), I would have said that your edits were probably 30% clear improvements, 50% meh, and 20% obvious disimprovements. But your recent edits are coming in almost entirely as disimprovement. E.g., take a look at this one, which includes stray formatting messing things up, typos, grammatical errors, and a wide variety of other nonsense; the only obviously decent part of it was to get rid of "state-of-the-art". (I've now re-done that change, in a way that wasn't drastically disruptive and guaranteed to be reverted.) I'm a bit surprised and disappointed, because you did not strike me initially as someone who was trying to troll. If you're looking for ways to edit constructively, I'm still happy to chat (though I'm rather busy IRL). --JBL (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkeybutt JC, an observation: you are blocked for 31 hours. That means that, the day after tomorrow, you will be able to edit again. Renewing the conflicts in which you are embroiled will feel great for the 15 minutes until you are blocked indefinitely. On the other hand, if you sit out the block, take a step back, and plan your future engagements in a more strategic way, that doesn't need to happen. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sole beneficiary

[edit]

Re [1]: Your removal of the adjective "sole" destroys meaning, please restore it. Your insistence on "is located in" creates repetitive, awkward writing when used in every single instance; please stop using it for two sentences in a row. The sentence about PCSSD high schools was much less awkward before, please restore it. Ditto the sentence about libraries. The removal of puffery around the universities was a big improvement. (This post shows why you should break up edits. I am trying this as an alternative to reverting all your edits to the article, let's see how it goes.) --JBL (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term City is home to Place seems too clichéd. Place is located in City is more formal and accurate and seems more encyclopedic, despite there being no policies / guidelines for or against either terms.
  • internationally renowned is puffery and thus should only be mentioned within a quote made by a cited source.
  • Removed the word major because what is major to one person may be minor to another and vice versa.
  • What does specialized mean? I don't think that word is necessary and it seems to make whatever sentence it is put in to seem less encyclopedic.
  • In addition, students have access to services they enjoy at the main campus—a library, computer labs, tutoring services, student services, all housed in an attractive new location with cutting-edge technology. was removed because it seemed like promotional material, having pufferous or positive loading. cutting-edge is puffery. I believe that all editorial opinions or other non-neutral statements should be put in quotes. Because WP:NPOV.
  • The city is home to a variety of private schools, including: changed to Various private schools are located in Little Rock, such as: because the latter sounds more formal and encyclopedic.
  • boasts over sounds like positive loading. Consists of at least sounds more neutral and encyclopedic.
  • Removal of sole from The college was also the sole beneficiary because I thought it was a pufferous or editorial word. I just googled the definition and it is defined as one and only. Is it the only one trusted by that governor? I could've put a [citation needed] there.
--Turkeybutt (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This long list of bullet points is largely unresponsive to what I wrote. I respond to the relevant points, and repeat those you ignored.
  1. Indeed, "X is home to Y" can be cliched if overused; on the other hand, "X is located in Y" is awkward and stilted if overused. (I have no idea why you think it is either "formal" or "encyclopedic.") Now that you've changed every single instance of statements about location to the latter usage, it is badly overused, and I have requested an extremely moderate amount of revision. Are you planning to revise?
  2. "Sole beneficiary" (of a will, bequest, or similar) is a standard legal term; it is precise, meaningful, and informative. Removing the adjective leaves a vague, less precise, less informative statement. You should restore the previous phrasing.
  3. You have neglected to respond to my comment about the extremely awkward construction "PCSSD high schools are located in the city such as." You should either restore the earlier phrasing or find a third alternative.
  4. You have neglected to respond to my comment about the sentence "The Central Arkansas Library System comprises the main building downtown and numerous branches throughout the city, Jacksonville, Maumelle, Perryville, Sherwood and Wrightsville", although my earlier statement about it was wrong: the problem is not that the new sentence is awkward but that you changed the meaning in a misleading way. You should restore the previous phrasing.
--JBL (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The replacing of includes with such as is intended to make it more formal than informal.
  • is home to sounds like it might be used in a promotional way. is located in sounds more neutral and accurate.
  • The removing of as well as and putting all those locations together into one big prose-list because English grammar allows such a shortening. I could've changed the city to Little Rock though...
--Turkeybutt (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to do any revision of your edit whatsoever? --JBL (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. But I fail to agree on you on whether we should use is home to or is located in. Either there should be a consensus or a guideline on what to use or where. --Turkeybutt (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think we can agree to disagree about "is located in." Best, JBL (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Rock, Arkansas

[edit]

In a recent edit of Little Rock, Arkansas, you tagged the phrase "well-known" in the following sentence as being a "peacock term": "The "little rock" was used by early river traffic as a landmark and became a well-known river crossing". Please look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and explain how "well-known"--particularly in the context of this sentence--is a peacock term? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PUFFERY. There is a yellow box listing peacock words. And well-known is listed. So it is a peacock term. It can be used in a positively loaded sense. Wikipedia articles should be written in a neutrally loaded sense. Wikipedia articles need to be in an impartial tone and not assume that anything is good or bad. You can learn more about puffery at WP:WIKIPUFFERY. --Turkeybutt (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are mistaken about some yellow box listing "well-known". It's not there. Your edit did not improve the article and will be removed. I see I am not the first to comment on your edits. I'd also like to comment on your edit summary here. Please take a moment to read WP:ESDONTS. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Turkeybutt, but you are being a turkey butt here. Used in that manner, well known is in no way puffery. WP:PUFFERY is an essay to help people learn what may be puffery. It is not policy. Please keep in mind that we do have a policy called Ignore all rules. That is to say there are few absolutes on Wikipedia. If an actor were described as well known, that would most likely be puffery. Let me give you a precise analogy to the situation at hand. If the article on Foo Industries described their factory as high tech, that would most likely be puffery. However, to say that Palo Alto, California is a center of high tech industry most assuredly would not be puffery. Please keep in mind this is a collaborative project. If your first instinct is to argue if someone disagrees with you, you won't last long. Speaking in the tone you used to Magnolia677 above is completely inappropriate. He is a very experienced editor. You frankly look quite dumb lecturing an editor of his experience when you've been here all of a week. You cannot possibly know what he, or I, have learned in our years here. Do yourself a favor and assume good faith (another pillar policy, by the way) when someone tries to guide you through the minefield that this project can be. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palo Alto, California is a center of high tech industry But that may be positive loading, and that is what Wikipedia articles should not have. Wikipedia shouldn't promote, highlight or demean anything. But it should put undue weight on things.
At least quote and cite some sources that mention that Palo Alto is "a center of high tech industry" or that the little rock is "a well-known rock formation". What does 'well-known' even mean?
How do we know for almost absolute certain if any particular cities are centers of high tech industry or not? High-tech can be subjective. VHS tapes may seem high-tech in 1950 but primitive in 2050.
  • Speaking in the tone you used to Magnolia677 above is completely inappropriate. He is a very experienced editor. You frankly look quite dumb lecturing an editor of his experience when you've been here all of a week. You cannot possibly know what he, or I, have learned in our years here. Good point; although I've been on Wikipedia some years longer than this account which I just set up this August, so it seems I haven't been on Wikipedia for long.
And we recently got a new computer earlier this year so it seems like I didn't make the edit to the article on flags where there were flags beside every country name so that people wouldn't have to keep looking up country flags just to make sure it is right, it was reverted but mentioned as being a good faith edit. I've been focusing on making Wikipedia more neutral, indifferent, impartial and more encyclopedic. You and I might know things that the other doesn't know.
Wikipedians don't have power over eachother. (except for admins, bureaucrats, stewards, the Arbitration Committee and the founder and owner of the site itself) But we can always correct eachother. --Turkeybutt (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Don't bite the newbies. --Turkeybutt (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC) forgot to sign[reply]

Magnolia677, that was a pointless revert.

[edit]

This revision makes no sense to me. The words is known for is unnecessary. the old name is ridiculous if there is no date specified for when the town was renamed to Kanakapur. We need a policy to tell us where is known for would be necessary. Why do all edits have to significantly improve the article? I don't have time for this madness. I hate all kinds of non-neutralism on Wikipedia. I have an unhealthy obsession with making articles more compliant with WP:NPOV. WP:Verifiability, not truth is another thing I am unhealthily obsessed with. --Turkeybutt (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your formatting. In my opinion, both versions are pretty terrible: awkwardly worded, and providing information in an unclear and difficult to assess way. --JBL (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original wording of one of the four sentences in this stub article about Kanakapur read:
"The old name of Kanakapura is Kaan-kaan halli".
You changed it to read:
"Kanakapura was named Kaan-kaan halli until [when?]."
Your edit almost seems vexatious. This sentence really really didn't need one of your seemingly endless tags. Really, it didn't. It did need something, but not a tag. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Responsible tagging. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then look at the edit I just made to Kanakapur. User:John from Idegon gave you some good advice. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that I am the worst neutralist editor ever, unless you have encountered worse china-shop bulls.
But what I'd like to to know is, which do you think is better;
  • Kanapakur is known for its production of silk and granite or Kanakapur produces silk and granite? Or is it just bad because I'm making a stub article even shorter?
--Turkeybutt (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

[edit]

If you do not change your approach right now, I am going to block you indefinitely. The net effect of you editing the way you are editing is to make things marginally worse, not better, and you are taking up lots of other editors' time.

  • For starters, "I don't have time for an edit summary" is not acceptable. Don't do that again.
  • You are still mixing good changes and bad changes in one large edit. Stop it.
  • You are arguing with people who know what they are talking about, when you self-admittedly don't know what you are talking about. Stop it.

Even after all this I'm not sure it will be productive to have you continue trying to copyedit here. But if you don't at least do these 3 things I know it won't be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the following on my talk page; I'm moving it here to keep the conversation in one place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I've had this extremely unhealthy obsession with editing articles. Apparently I seem to be taking WP:NPOV too seriously. I do get that a large edit is more likely to hit an edit conflict since they take more time to do. I just can't help myself. I want to replace every mention of pass away with die. Pass away is an euphemism that should not be used. Die is more accurate. I don't believe that articles should say nice or rude things about anything, they should just assume indifference towards everything.

I try to make sure that articles that read like this:

  • The countries that Adolf Hitler conquered included Poland, France, Hungary, and Ukraine. Fortunately, Hitler passed away in his bunker in 1945, and it is interesting to note that the racist tyrant killed himself so the Allied forces couldn't arrest him.

become more like this:

  • Adolf Hitler conquered various countries such as Poland, France, Hungary, and Ukraine. In 1945, Hitler died in his bunker via suicide to avoid getting arrested by the Allied forces.

Don't you notice how non-neutral the red example is and how encyclopedic the green example is?

I don't like the use of positive or negative bias in articles, such as this;

  • Notable Arkansans include Tom Cotton, who was representative since 2014, the well-known former president Bill Clinton, who is renowned for his famous reforms in education, and Sam Walton, founder of the celebrated discount store known as Wal-Mart.

I would want that to look like this:

  • People such as Tom Cotton, who became an Arkansas representative in 2014: Bill Clinton, who was president of the United States from 1993 to 2001; and Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart.

Do you really think that the positive loading and puffing in the red text is really necessary for Wikipedia articles? I don't think so. I'm one of those strictly neutralist Wikipedians.

Just because you think that something is [peacock] or you think that [weasel] that something is [peacock] or that almost everyone agrees that something is [peacock] that doesn't make it a fact, it's still an opinion, but if you want those words in the Wikipedia articles, at least cite a reliable source and put it in quotes so as to preserve the neutrality of the articles. You can criticize, bite, attack or even threaten to block or ban me just because I just started this account a few weeks ago and your account was here for years collecting all kinds of knowledge and wisdom on Wikipedia but no matter how much we learn, we can never know everything. I believe that we should not let personal bias get to the best of us as editors when trying to contribute to Wikipedia.

As the worst editor ever (and I think I should get a Wikipedia's Dumbest Editor award) I'd like to figure out how to make Wikipedia articles as neutral as possible without inadvertently terrorizing its contents. I keep having to realize again and again that I have to make small edits. That makes sense to me because if I take too long to edit something, I'd most likely crash into an edit conflict. If I keep making multiple small edits each only changing one small area or word at a time and then telling what I did in the edit summary would that be okay?

#NoobLivesMatter --Turkeybutt (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't really need to explain NPOV to me; I am much more familiar with it than you are. The problem is you are too inexperienced to be doing this kind of thing as quickly, frequently, carelessly, and unthinkingly as you are. And taking some kind of passive-agressive "oh woe is me", ("As the worst editor ever...") stance is not going to work with me; I've seen the same tactic used many times before, and it doesn't gain sympathy, it reinforces my opinion that you probably don't belong here. What gains sympathy is to stop doing things that are pissing people off, and then arguing when it is pointed out to you. We'll see how editing slower, more carefully, in smaller chunks, and listening to other people works, and then go from there. Perhaps that solves the problem, perhaps you'll be topic banned from copyediting, or perhaps you'll be blocked. But you are not going to continue wasting other people's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said a bad word there; What gains sympathy is to stop doing things that are ****ing people off, and then arguing when it is pointed out to you.
You could've said What gains sympathy is to stop doing things that are ticking people off, and then arguing when it is pointed out to you.
I know that Wikipedia is not censored and is not a children's encyclopedia but that's no excuse for admins and other people to use dirty words or naughty language.
--Turkeybutt (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. If you want to choose to focus on that one issue, that's fine. But the fact remains that I will block you if the disruption continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

[edit]
Hi Turkeybutt JC! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:38, Friday, September 2, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

September 2016

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Napoleon. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 21:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't reverting. I was replacing a positively loaded statement with the facts that the sources say things about Napoleon. Someone reverted it saying that dictionary.com is unreliable. So I made another revision (which is the same as before but sans the Dictionary.com reference. If it were a revert the edit summary would have the word reverted in it at the beginning and it doesn't. --Turkeybutt (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you click WP:3RR you will see written:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

Italics are mine. I hope this makes it clear. Dr. K. 00:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, the positively loaded statement is allowed to act like a fact in the article when it just expresses positive bias towards Napoleon? I don't think Wikipedia should praise or demean anything. --Turkeybutt (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should explain that position at the article's talk page and work to build a consensus among editors to support the change. You can't just make the same change over and over. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Now I see the editor has added some tags at the lead without justifying them on the talkpage. This is a Good article. It has been vetted by the community. This kind of tagging is not helpful. Dr. K. 01:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just questioned the seemingly non-neutral statements on the talk page. --Turkeybutt (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone told me that dictionary.com was unreliable. That's why I put the [unreliable source?] tag. I could've as well said this on the Napoleon talk page. --Turkeybutt (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists

[edit]

I noticed you made 5 edits in a row (3 were test edits) to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists.

The warning tag at the top of that article states: "any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Though you did discuss your intended edits on the talk page, you then went ahead and made significant edits before any other editors had a chance to respond on the talk page. This certainly subverts the intention of that warning tag. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TB "went ahead" after waiting 4 days, with no responses. That's totally reasonable behavior. --JBL (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make the examples more neutral. I saw lots of praise for the buildings and architecture and positive loading that made it sound like the script for a promotional New York advertisement. So I went ahead and tried to make it sound more impartial and neutral in tone. --Turkeybutt (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No response isn't consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do I start a consensus then? --Turkeybutt (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that no one responded to your talk page comment was message enough. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an idiotic position, and you should drop the distracting nonsense about behavior (because any reasonable person would have behaved the same way) and instead focus on the legitimate substantive problems. --JBL (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my comment (that you reverted) here?

[edit]

Because you said that I as a newcomer sounded dumb to respond to an experienced user in an advisory tone. Experienced users can need some reminders too. You seemed to have been corrupted by your own bragging rights.

WP:AGEISM | WP:DNB | #NoobLivesMatter --Turkeybutt (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake unblock

[edit]

Please don't add unblock requests to your sandbox when you are not blocked, as it adds you to the list of unblock requests and wastes admins' time investigating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[edit]

You probably should be aware of this: User talk:Floquenbeam#Problematic and a bit tiresome. - DVdm (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but you are continuing to try to make edits you are not sufficiently competent to make, resulting in significant wasted time for many other editors, and in spite of numerous comments, suggestions, warnings, and near-universal disagreement with your edits. I appreciate the desire, but you do not appear to have the skills necessary to copy edit other people's work.
So, for starters, consider yourself topic banned from copy editing, and from "making articles more NPOV", and similar editing. I will block you from editing if you continue.
Is there anything else on WP that you'd prefer to do instead? I don't want to block you if there's another area you want to try that will be less disruptive, as it seems you are trying to help. But at the same time, I don't want to just move the same problems to a different area; that wouldn't be fair to other editors either. So consider what you'd like to do instead, and consider whether it matches your skill set, whether it is less likely to be disruptive, and let me know here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clearer: this includes discussion on talk pages of edits you have made in this area that have since been reverted. And, anticipating the inevitable, it also applies to lobbying for or suggesting edits in this area that you would like to make, but can't. Finally, this can be appealed at WP:ANI, but I suggest not doing so before you've demonstrated non-disruptive editing in other areas, as the appeal would likely be rejected. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop editing disruptively? Apparently every single edit I make in the name of NPOV seems disruptive to many people. I'd like some pointers on how to edit in a NPOV way without disrupting Wikipedia. --Turkeybutt (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spent about 15 minutes reading your editing history and the history of messages others have posted about your editing problems, in the hope of finding something helpful I could say in answer to your question. I'm afraid the answer that I came to was that you have already been told extensively about all the problems with your editing, and if you don't understand what you have been told then it is difficult what new things can be said that you will be likely to understand. About the only thing I can suggest is that you forget about making changes to make articles fit what you call "NPOV", because what you mean by that is out of line with the consensus. Try doing other kinds of editing instead. I am leaving your request for help open, in case someone else can suggest something else that may be helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violating your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are admins criticizing my NPOVist editing philosophy?

[edit]

{{helpme}} When I try to make an article more neutral, I often get my edits reverted by admins who use excuses such as "you made lots of typos and grammatical errors" or "your edit was inadvertently disruptive" or "you are incompetent" or "you changed many meanings", and when I try to explain to them, I sometimes get responses such as "if it's cited you can put that opinion in the article" or "those first/second person, instructional and POV statements are in the sources" or "you as a newcomer should not be lecturing experienced users" or "these are well-known". Most of the time, many of those admins never provide me with any good advice on how to edit right or explain using Wikipedia policy why my edits are disruptive or why they think my English is terrible. I suspect that whoever is making those excuses listed above is inadvertently attacking me and my editing skills and my neutralist philosophy. It seems that they are putting sameness of wording above reliability, verification and NPOV. --Turkeybutt (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not admins; I'm the only admin dealing with you, the rest are regular editors, who have had to deal with your disruption. Who, contrary to your claim, have explained what is wrong with your edits in great detail on the article talk pages. Eight people, I believe, eight regular editors, have all been reverting you. But leaving aside the "admin" quibble, the answer to the question in your section title is in the first sentence of your post. Editors are criticizing your editing philosophy because you made lots of typos and grammatical errors, your edit was inadvertently(?) disruptive, you were incompetent in the area you decided to focus on, and you were changed the meanings of the sentences you changed. That is sufficient reason to topic ban you from what you think is NPOVist editing. I'll leave the help template unchanged, so someone uninvolved can take a look and give you a ninth opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Turkeybutt JC. Other than answering one of your questions at the Teahouse (and then expanding at my talk page) we have not interacted and I was not aware of the issues discussed above until I was drawn here by the help me request and started looking at these discussions and the background at various pages. I am saying that so that you know I am an independent party, making an independent assessment (or, at least, you'll just have to trust me that that's the case).

When many different people have criticized you for similar things, one seductive way of looking at it – a path of least resistance for one's ego – is to think that it must be some type of conspiracy. Once in a great while that's true – "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me". But most of the time when this happens it means, well, it's you; you're the one with the problem, and so you need to step back, realize you might be in the wrong, do your best to drop the defenses you've erected, and take heed of advice you've been given. This is one of those situations.

In short, many of your edits—intended to introduce more neutral language, to remove supposed puffery, to make articles read more formally, and various other copyedits—removed unproblematic writing, introduced errors, made flowing language stilted and so forth, as multiple other editors have independently advised you. Let me just give you one example, in excruciating detail, to illustrate the point:

In Louis Braille, under the edit summary " Making the article more NPOV", one of your edits was to replace "...made a special visit to the school", with "...visited to the school." The first problem, a major one, is that "visited to the school" is highly ungrammatical English. In fact, it reads much like machine translation, which swaps in grammar from another language that just does not work at all in English. But more critically, I think you wanted to replace this because you took "special" as POV under one of that word's potential meanings "extraordinary and unique", when it is being used here for an entirely different meaning (that is absolutely standard English) – in this context, making a particular trip to the school, where one does or would not do so regularly. So not only did this change replace a grammatical statement with broken English, but it changed the meaning, for no purpose.
All this is to say, I agree with the criticism you've received. I'm fairly certain, though, that there are useful things you can do on Wikipedia without running into problems. I think coming up with a plan of what you might do instead, as Floquenbeam has suggested, is a good one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm wrong, then all of Wikipedia's neutralist policies are fake and wrong. It seems to me that Wikipedia's neutralist policies are obsolete and no longer legitimate policy on Wikipedia. Why didn't Wikipedia warn users that making articles more neutral is bad idea? English is the only language I fully understand, but apparently, I am illiaterate. But I refuse to say I am wrong because an admin has told me that the "oh woe is me" thing doesn't work. He even swears the P word that is one of the seven dirty words. Okay, fine, I am wrong. And so is every admin and experienced user ever. But it is interesting to note that, however, the greatest thing about Wikipedia; is that you get to place in biased statements in Wikipedia's articles and many users won't mind, and any attempt to make Wikipedia neutral will get you blocked. Don't follow NPOV. Admins always block neutralists, so don't take NPOV seriously. NPOV is a very, very, bad philosophy that should be scrapped for good. Because NPOV is just a scam to trick gullible editors like me into making disruptive edits. I think English is my mother tongue, since it is the only language I understand, say, read and write in, but it turns out that I am alingual or illingual since I haven't learned every possibel spellling, I always learned the spelling "material" but it turns out the word "materiel" is correct according to Dr. K. Or maybe every single word is being spelt and pronounced wrong. Language doesn't exist. NPOV doesn't exist. We have to write from a biased viewpoint. No exceptions. NPOV is just a big fat lie to manipulate gullible masses so they can't edit Wikipedia and Wikipedia can be very contradictory and contradict itself and not be faithful. Wikipedia is not reliable and never will be. It's not supposed to be reliable in the first place, because neutrality is a very, very, very bad idea. We should be focusing on getting our points across instead of making it more neutral. I'd like to nominate all neutralist pages for deletion. As one of my userboxes said, I am a very paranoid user who started assuming bad faith. And all the admins I've met so far are violating the entire Trifecta (ignore all rules, mind NPOV, don't be a jerk). Or as I stereotype. I hate Wikipedia because it is the most biased encyclopedia ever and you are no--Turkeybutt (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. Nothing I could say would possibly matter. Moving along.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The visited to the school grammatical error was not intended. I meant for it to say visited the school. What may seem special to you may not seem special to other readers and editors. Someone else could've fixed the typos and grammar errors for me. --Turkeybutt (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given your prior response, I'm not going to spend much time here. Your post above proves my point. Your comment that "what may seem special to you may not seem special to other[s]" means you have the misunderstanding I suspected. Special in that construction means a non-regular or dedicated trip and is not a superlative.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia articles should not tell readers that anything is usual or unusual. Let the readers decide what they think. Your interpretation of the subject and my interpretation of the subject and everyone else's interpretations of the subjects must not be written in Wikipedia's voice but should be explained in a fair, impartial and unbiased way. All that Wikipedia articles have to do is just state the facts in a neutral way, cite and verify reliable sources and explain the sides fairly. --Turkeybutt (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) No they do not. The reflect what those reliable sources say, and specifically are not fair to all points of view. To be otherwise would, for example, give fringe theories undue weight against a generally accepted consensensus. Rember what the man said: In the fifteenth-century, WP wouold have reported that the earth was flat... Muffled Pocketed 12:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revoked talk page access

[edit]

I have revoked talk page access so you cannot waste anyone else's time while you're blocked. Your latest posts almost caused me to change this to an indefinite block, but in the spirit of "no one likes to be blocked", I'll give you one last chance. If anything like that happens again when your block expires you will be blocked indefinitely with no further warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what I'm topic banned from? You forgot to specify what I'm topic banned from. What topic was the Braille article in that I was topic banned from? --Turkeybutt (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to be as clear as possible. The problem is not that you want to make articles more NPOV and more clearly worded, and others want to keep them POV and poorly worded. The problem is that you do not have the skills and judgement needed to determine what is more NPOV, and what is clearer wording, in a lot of real world cases. You're looking for black and white rules, when this area is full of shades of grey. You have posted to 4-5 different pages now that people are preventing you from making articles more NPOV. That is not true. People are preventing you from making articles worse while you're trying, and failing, in inappropriate ways.
The extent of the problem means that this is not a simple issue of someone explaining how you should do it; it means you need to mature and gain some experience. There is no clear and simple rule set to follow, it requires judgement and experience that come with time. Until then, you either need to go somewhere else, or (if possible) find something else to do here that more closely matches your skill set, if you can and if you want to.
So, you are topic banned from making any edits to any articles that you think make them "more NPOV or more clearly worded". You are also banned from using the talk page of articles to lobby for such changes. That's a very, very broad topic ban, and I fear prevents you from doing the only thing you want to do. But it is either that, or an indefinite block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Jimbo's talk page

[edit]

Asking for help on Jimbo Wales's talk page is a terrible idea. It wastes everyone's time, and doesn't have anything to do with Jimbo. Ask on your own talk page or something. Also, please read WP:TLDR and WP:WALLS. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page watcher) Actually, Turkeybutt, Platypus is being far too polite. Some would cogently argue that making posts like that (I mean, criticizing administrators; really a good idea right now?) on one of the most high-profie pages out of the five and a half million the project possesses, two days after coming off an almost indef (see above) block... was little more than trolling. And that would be a slipery slope. Just FYI. Muffled Pocketed
Exactly. Also, as Fortuna said, you are incredibly close to an indef block right now. If this continues, an admin will block you an a nanosecond. Be careful. I would suggest taking a break from Wikipedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A remark on strategy: your problems here relate to editing in a way that draws too much (negative) attention. Making big dramatic gestures to draw attention to yourself will make these problems worse, not better. It would be strategically more useful to attempt to edit in a way that draws a minimum of attention. --JBL (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Materiel & material

[edit]

You may find it interesting to compare the two articles Materiel and Material. You will say that they are two quite different words. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that they are two quite different words Hey! You predicted the future! How did you know I would say that?

Removed a comment

[edit]

I have removed your comment at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. The reason is in my edit summary. You can find the answer to your question here on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I didn't remove this is that someone already commented. Turkeybutt, this isn't going to work out. I am blocking you indefinitely for disrupting, unintentionally I presume, everything you touch. Give yourself a year or two to mature, and then come back and we'll see how things have changed. Standard template will show up below in a minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said I was topic banned but you didn't say that I was going to be blocked. --Turkeybutt (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've complained about this on 4 different pages, saying increasingly silly things each time. The post to WT:NPOV was just the last straw. And it appears on your user page you just admitted to block evasion. But even if you weren't a returing disruptive editor, you are not competent to edit here. If you want one more uninvolved admin to review this, then feel free to make an unblock request, but if it is declined I am going to remove talk page access. I already feel bad that I've allowed you to disrupt so many other people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I quit! Can anyone find me a better non-Wikia / non-Wikimedia / non-Uncyclopedia / non-RationalWiki / non-Encyclopedia Dramatica alternative to Wikipedia that has a strict but easily understandable NPOV / verification policies like Wikipedia but with...

[edit]

...a more reasonable community that won't punish / block / ban me for over-making a million mistakes in my editing in a short time or going too crazy on the Wiki or getting in too many edit wars with potential vandals or reverting non-neutral contributions or for writing too much to support your side of an argument and everyone gets along because everyone gets to read policy that reads similarly to WP:NPOV but is easily remembered by the community? That would make a good exile for me...

I don't want a Wikia or Wikimedia alternative because I don't see anything I would be interested in editing. Uncyclopedia, RationalWiki and Encyclopedia Dramatica are too strange/weird. I'd like to find a good Wikipedia knockoff that still has strict but easily understood NPOV and verification policies that have the same rules as on Wikipedia but is interpreted the same way throughout the Wiki because it reads in an easy-to-understand way so there are no conflicts over how to properly interpret the policies and reasoning can come pretty fast but despite having similar policies to Wikipedia; won't have any way to block or ban users if they make too many stupid edits or write too much or even for harassing editors and calling them names like "disruptive" and "incompetent" too much but there are no ads so no lag or accidentally clicking one or stumbling on a bad one. I think that would be a good one because stupid people would be politely dealt with instead of being kicked from the site but still has similar copyright policy and other kinds of policy like Wikipedia, but there is no 'competence is required' policy so stupid people don't get discriminated against. #DumbLivesMatter #NoobLivesMatter #AllLivesMatter --Turkeybutt (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? You clearly don't have the ability to edit Wikipedia, so I don't think you would have the skills to edit another wiki. Also, have you actually read NPOV? See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for some other options. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging Floquenbeam to revoke talk page access: @Floquenbeam: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aready done ;) but great minds think alike eh. Muffled Pocketed 13:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should blocks require consensus from other admins?

[edit]

I think it's unfair that all it takes is one admin and then BOOM! Blocked for good from every Wiki privilege ever. It's racist against stupid people. #DumbLivesMatter Idiots and morons and dummies are humans too! Why have consensus for deletion, creation, moving of pages or requests for adminship or bureaucrat if there is no consensus for block requests? It's not fair because a really stupid Wikipedian can easily be permanently be blocked from every Wikimedia ever and have every privilege ever stripped from them by just one really angry admin. Why can't there be consensus between admins on whether a user should be blocked or not? I think a consensus would be fair because the opinions of other admins would determine the outcome, that way the admins who oppose to the blocks can have their voices heard in this situation so the user about to be blocked can be saved by other admins through consensus. Some admins will support the block and others will oppose it and others will just comment on it. And possibly some experienced editors, IP editors and newcomers may be able to help such consensus too, so many supporters vs. many opposers will make it so that it's multiple Wikipedians who determine the outcome, not just one angry admin. There are many people agreeing with the angry admin, but there are also many people who take the stupid editor's side as well, and a consensus will help the stupid editor's supporters get their voices heard. Does anyone else think that is a good idea? --Turkeybutt (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It's racist against stupid people"? Pretty sure that race doesn't apply in stupidity. Also, you do not need to gain consensus to block, admins are trusted to make good blocks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What if admins go crazy and block every single user who annoys them or disagrees with them and take all privileges from all Wikimedias? --Turkeybutt (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This block wasn't a "crazy" block, to be honest, he should have blocked you sooner. You are distruptive, and clearly do not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. No reasonable admin would unblock you. With your rants, you're digging yourself into a bigger hole. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your talk page access has been revoked by Nick. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocks, by their nature, require swift action. That's why we have the unblock policy: it allows other administrators to review a block and see if it's appropriate or not. (By the way, deletion does not require a consensus. Speedy deletion can be done quickly by any admin without needing consensus; just like unblocking, there is deletion review to mitigate inappropriate deletion.
    The mechanism you're talking about—revoking a user's privileges of all sorts on Wikipedia after a consensus discussion—is the banning policy. A user who has been banned from the English Wikipedia cannot edit on the site at all, not even on a talk page. A ban does not automatically carry over to other Wikipedia sites, although there is a procedure for a global ban. I think I've seen as many ban proposals fail as succeed at WP:AN; people don't usually get banned for stupidity, but more for malice or flagrant disruption.
    But back to your original request: no, blocks should not require consensus before implementing. —C.Fred (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Turkeybutt JC. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:381:101:142:504A:71CF:709E:FBFD (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Turkeybutt_JC&oldid=1079264362"